Primary Navigation

earliest scholarly study of the LP

Discourse about, and commentary upon, the LP is, as is well known, not a modern phenomenon. It is something that has been engaged in since at least the third

Message 1 of 7
, Sep 28, 2012

0 Attachment

Discourse about, and commentary upon, the LP is, as is well known, not
a modern phenomenon. It is something that has been engaged in since at
least the third century CE, beginning, so far as we know, in the Latin
West somewhere between the years 200 and 206 with Tertullian in his De
Oratione (On Prayer). And it has continued until this day. But as it
was assumed since Tertullian's time up until the modern period that
“there is comprised in the prayer an epitome of the entire Gospel” (ut
re vera in oratione breviarium totius evangelii comprehendatur), and
given that the LP was regarded as the basic tool, along with the Creed
and the Decalogue, for teaching Christian doctrine and achieving a
“Christ centered life”, almost all of this discourse and commentary was
not concerned with establishing what the original (or even the
evangelistic) meaning and intent of the LP might have been. And even
when exegesis was undertaken, it was done so in order to fit the
meaning of the prayer within the context of a presumed unified biblical
witness to theological apriorii and under the hermeneutical assumption
that of Scriptura sui ipsius interpres (Scripture is its own interpreter).

But of course, this changed with the realization that -- to use
Krister Stendahl's words – "the Bible contains revelation that could be
grasped in the clear form of eternal truth unconditioned and
uncontaminated by historical limitations, could no longer be maintained
and that grasping both what a Biblical text meant, as well as what it
might mean, could only be determined by reading that text from within
the historical and cultural and religious context in which it had been
produced".

So today, with perhaps the devotional commentaries on the LP as the
exception, virtually everyone who discusses the LP does so with the
intent, and through the use of historical critical methodologies, to
uncover what Jesus (or the evangelists who record the LP) saw as that
prayer's aim and original meaning.

I note all of this because I am interested in discovering is who it was
who, under this realization, first moved away from the pre-modern
understanding of what the LP was all about, and produced the first
historical critical commentary on/discussion of the LP? Does anyone know?

Discourse about, and commentary upon, the LP is, as is well known, not a modern phenomenon. It is something that has been engaged in since at least the third

Message 2 of 7
, Sep 28, 2012

0 Attachment

Discourse about, and commentary upon, the LP is, as is well known, not
a modern phenomenon. It is something that has been engaged in since at
least the third century CE, beginning, so far as we know, in the Latin
West somewhere between the years 200 and 206 with Tertullian in his De
Oratione (On Prayer). And it has continued until this day. But as it
was assumed since Tertullian's time up until the modern period that
“there is comprised in the prayer an epitome of the entire Gospel” (ut
re vera in oratione breviarium totius evangelii comprehendatur), and
given that the LP was regarded as the basic tool, along with the Creed
and the Decalogue, for teaching Christian doctrine and achieving a
“Christ centered life”, almost all of this discourse and commentary was
not concerned with establishing what the original (or even the
evangelistic) meaning and intent of the LP might have been. And even
when exegesis was undertaken, it was done so in order to fit the
meaning of the prayer within the context of a presumed unified biblical
witness to theological apriorii and under the hermeneutical assumption
that of Scriptura sui ipsius interpres (Scripture is its own interpreter).

But of course, this changed with the realization that -- to use
Krister Stendahl's words – "the Bible contains revelation that could be
grasped in the clear form of eternal truth unconditioned and
uncontaminated by historical limitations, could no longer be maintained
and that grasping both what a Biblical text meant, as well as what it
might mean, could only be determined by reading that text from within
the historical and cultural and religious context in which it had been
produced".

So today, with perhaps the devotional commentaries on the LP as the
exception, virtually everyone who discusses the LP does so with the
intent, and through the use of historical critical methodologies, to
uncover what Jesus (or the evangelists who record the LP) saw as that
prayer's aim and original meaning.

I note all of this because I am interested in discovering is who it was
who, under this realization, first moved away from the pre-modern
understanding of what the LP was all about, and produced the first
historical critical commentary on/discussion of the LP? Does anyone know?

Maybe the bidding could be opened with the suggestion of looking at what Reimarus had to say about the Kingdom. But maybe there could be something earlier

Message 3 of 7
, Sep 29, 2012

0 Attachment

Maybe the bidding could be opened with the
suggestion of looking at what Reimarus had
to say about the Kingdom. But maybe there
could be something earlier than the late
18th C.

David M.

---------
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Jgibson

... I checked Reimarus. Nothing there that I could see. Then I had the idea of looking at the discussion of the LP in the Meyer Commentary on Matthew. Looks

Message 4 of 7
, Sep 29, 2012

0 Attachment

On 9/29/2012 5:32 AM, David Mealand wrote:

> Maybe the bidding could be opened with the
> suggestion of looking at what Reimarus had
> to say about the Kingdom. But maybe there
> could be something earlier than the late
> 18th C.
>
> David M.

I checked Reimarus. Nothing there that I could see. Then I had the
idea of looking at the discussion of the LP in the Meyer Commentary on
Matthew. Looks like there was quite a bit of discussion of the prayer
that was intent to set it in a first century context beginning at least
with Wetstein in 1751 or so. Meyer also mentions several studies of the
LP that he relies upon -- among them those of Kamphausen, d. Oebet d.
Ilcrrn, 1866 ; J. Hanne,
in d. Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1806, p. 507 ff.

Wetstein gives a lot of passages from Jewish and Graeco-Roman texts relevant to whatever verse in the NT he is at. On 6.10 for example he cites Berakot and

Message 5 of 7
, Sep 29, 2012

0 Attachment

Wetstein gives a lot of passages from Jewish and
Graeco-Roman texts relevant to whatever verse in the NT
he is at. On 6.10 for example he cites Berakot and two
rabbis who say a "benedictio" has to mention the name of God
and the kingdom; he also cites Tanchuma , Sota, and "Jewish
Prayers" including the Kaddisch - he gives 7 or 8 lines of
detail here,including mention of Kingdom, redemption, and Messiah.
By the time W gets to the doxology he has covered
over 3 folio pages of double columns of text. By then he has
also cited Aristotle, Epictetus and Diodorus as well as more
Jewish and early Christian sources.

David M.

---------
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

David Mealand

Kamphausen s book is presumably this one, and though in theory I should have access to it, I haven t navigated the obstacles as yet. Das Gebet des Herrn

Message 6 of 7
, Sep 30, 2012

0 Attachment

Kamphausen's book is presumably this one, and though in theory
I should have access to it, I haven't navigated the obstacles
as yet.

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

David Mealand

If one compares Wetstein with the earlier work by Matthew Poole, Synopsis criticorum ...commentatorum (1694) on Matthew 6.9-10 the earlier work does cite

Message 7 of 7
, Oct 1, 2012

0 Attachment

If one compares Wetstein with the earlier work by Matthew Poole,
Synopsis criticorum ...commentatorum (1694) on Matthew 6.9-10
the earlier work does cite Berakot fol 40.2 to the effect that prayer
which does not mention the kingdom is not prayer,
but apart from that it mainly focuses on the meaning of the words
in related biblical passages and in a theological setting. The difference
is that Wetstein is evidently much more aware of the need for historical
contextualization. The works Poole is using are learned and detailed,
but in the passage used for comparison they lack this historical element.
Wetstein is more aware of the context in Judaism of the Graeco-Roman period.

In the course of locating the web page for the work I inadvertently
clicked something which sent a repeat of an email from earlier
this year, for which I apologise.

David M.

---------
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.